Mayor John Cook is considering whether to ask the city to pay more than a half-million dollars in legal bills in fighting an attempt to recall him.

He said that under a recent interpretation of the City Charter by one of the city's lawyers, the events that led to the recall attempt probably should never have happened.

A group of religious conservatives tried to recall Cook and city Reps. Susie Byrd and Steve Ortega because they voted in 2011 to restore health benefits to gay and unmarried partners of city employees. Recall advocates led a drive in 2010 to put a measure on the November ballot that ended the benefits.

REPORTER

Marty Schladen

But earlier this month, the city's lawyer for matters related to the planned demolition of City Hall and construction of a Triple-A baseball stadium gave the City Council advice that might indicate that the November 2010 vote was not legal.

"It was a surprise when we got that legal advice," Cook said on Monday.

Opponents of the stadium plan have circulated a petition to put a referendum on the May ballot to stop the demolition of City Hall. Lowell Denton, the city's lawyer, told the council that the charter doesn't allow for a vote of the people to reverse actions already taken by the council. Rather, Denton said the charter only provides citizens a process to initiate new legislation.

Advertisement

Cook said he's going to wait until after a Jan. 10 court hearing to decide whether to ask the city to pay his legal bills. That's when County Court 5 Judge Carlos Villa will hear a motion to temporarily stop demolition of City Hall in advance of the May election.

Denton is expected to argue that an initiative reversing the council's stadium votes is not legal.

When Cook, Byrd and Ortega voted to restore benefits for the gay and unmarried partners of city employees, recall advocates circulated petitions and said the officials had disregarded their votes. Cook sued them, arguing that they illegally used church resources to circulate recall petitions and that they hadn't formed a proper political action committee as required by law.

County Court 3 Judge Javier Alvarez ruled earlier this year that despite Cook's suit, the recall elections would go forward. But the Eighth Court of Appeals reversed Alvarez, ruling that recall advocates had broken the law and that their petitions would be thrown out.

The advocates appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, but it issued an order last week saying it would not consider the case.

Cook racked up hefty legal bills during the fight. On Monday, he said his latest bill from the firm Cox Smith said he owes $517,433.

Cook has said the amount far exceeds his retirement savings, and he and his lawyers also have considered trying to collect the money from the defendants in his lawsuit.

If he were to sue the city for the money, Cook would claim that he undertook his legal fight because city lawyers didn't correctly interpret the city's charter in the first place.

There are separate sections in the charter for initiatives and referendums.

The one about initiatives spells out the process to propose new ordinances to the City Council and, if it doesn't act, to voters.

The section about referendums is more succinct.

"A referendum election may be called by the City Council when a collective bargaining agreement between the city and an employee organization so provides," it says.